The transboundary National Park (TBNP) Region MeinWeg spans protected areas within the municipalities Roermond, Roedalen, Wegberg and Wassenberg on both sides of the German-Dutch border. The NP de Meinweg dominates the Dutch side of the TBNP Region and has three zones (core, buffer and recreational), which allow for conserving sensitive natural areas and regulating tourism within the NP. Within the neighboring German part of the TBNP Region, there are several fragmented protected areas. Before the project, each park had its own protective status and there was no consistent protective zonation throughout the German part. The transboundary working group of the project applied the Dutch NP zonation within the German portion of the NP Region MeinWeg. In particular, nature reserves were classified as core zones, protected landscapes as buffer zones, and other natural areas without protective status as recreational zones. The zonation and protective status of the TBNP Region thereby became comparable on both sides of the border, and future cooperation in nature conservation and joint monitoring measures became easier. This in turn helps to achieve conservation of natural process on at least 50% of the TBNP Region.

In the scope of the project, a TB working group for nature conservation was established for the first time. Members are representatives of private and governmental nature conservation groups who coordinated the preparation and implementation of measures for landscape and nature protection across the border. This working group has also coordinated and further developed the expanded recreational zonation for the national park region. An improved cooperation resulted in more effective and better coordinated conservation measures and the realization of biotope connectivity among Natura 2000 sites. Workshops on cooperation regarding maintenance and development of the Dutch-German Meinweg region also took place. The participants (representatives of forest organizations, forestry authorities and nature conservation organizations) discussed possible strategies for short- or long-term conservation of natural processes (on at least 50% of the area) and developed a concept for the use of the TB natural region. Experts gave information about forestry management options for both sides of the border.

During the planning phase extensive formative research informs the Social Marketing, as well as the Technical Assistance components of a campaign. Research sets the baselines that allow the assessment of social and conservation impacts following a campaign. Qualitative research (e.g. focus groups, observation, in-depth interviews) is geared towards understanding target audience opinions, feelings, concerns and perceived benefits of current as well as desired management practices. Qualitative research is about creating a casual conversation with and between participants to establish a comfortable relationship, and to reveal underlying information unobtainable through quantitative research. Quantitative research surveys capture specific answers to specific questions to describe demography, identify media preferences, and assess the current state of knowledge, attitude, communication and readiness of target audiences regarding a certain behavior change. Both components ultimately inform campaign decisions like objectives, respective activities, materials, and messages for both Social Marketing and Technical Assistance.

The development of the capacity of fisherfolk to manage their organization, through training activities in leadership, business, communications, advocacy and representation is important in contributing to strong fisherfolk organisations and appropriate representation and participation in fisheries governance. This capacity development is based on identified needs, focused on priority areas and conducted in collaboration with appropriate partners.

Unlike Social Marketing, the Technical Assistance (TA) is based on more personal interactions with the fishers at the fishing group level (cooperatives or associations) or at the individual fisher level. This allows the issues to be addressed with more detail and depth, although larger groups of people are not reached. The overarching goal is to promote fishers´ support for conservation actions (e.g., creation of FRZ, adoption of sustainable fishing practices). Technical assistance tools are targeted towards building capacity in coastal communities and removing technical barriers, emphasizing leadership among fishers to improve the management of fisheries resources. Examples of technical assistance activities include one-on-one conversations, fishing trips, fisher exchanges among sites, formal training in specific fishing methods through workshops and courses, informal training, meetings with the authorities, follow-up with administrative and legal processes (e.g., fishing concession/permit renewal) and providing organizational materials (e.g., file cabinets, blackboards, etc.).

Education, information and outreach programs help to enhance public support and participation of local communities in invasive lionfish control programs.

The aim of this activity was preservation of cultural sites and promotion of cultural tourism through reconstruction of buildings and production of information in order to improve knowledge of the past in Paanajärvi National Park in Russia. The border area was ravaged in past wars and the border shifted leaving parts of what is now Paanajärvi NP that belonged to Finland on the Russian side. Through understanding of the past we can learn from it and promote peace and cooperation in our time. Two buildings were constructed using an old building technique for log houses after models from the 1930s in the old Finnish settlement of Arola in Paanajärvi NP (now part of Russia) and one in the old Russian Karelian village of Vartiolampi. Information panels about the history of these sites were placed in the vicinity of the buildings and an exhibition of historical objects was set up in the building in Vartiolampi. Also history books were produced in order to highlight that the NPs share common roots and want to share a common future as well.

We carefully prepared our maps and other data and then wrote a supporting letter to one of the organizers of the IUCN CBD EBSA meeting in Moscow in March 2013. After some back and forth, we managed to get a formal invitation and to raise the funds to send researcher Mikhail Nagaylik. He attended and submitted a strong case for a large EBSA covering most of the east coast of Kamchatka. This EBSA was accepted and supported both by the scientists as well as the Ministry in Moscow.

This is the essential building block toward creating an effective MPA at the Costa Rica Dome. It is still In process. The steps already taken are stimulating, through conferences and meetings, discussion at national, regional and international levels. This process was started by presenting the idea with a case study in Marine Protected Areas for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises (Hoyt, 2011) and an associated campaign, and, crucially, working closely with the Central American (Costa Rica based) NGO MarViva.

Stakeholders (fishers, surveillance, MPA managers, processor of seafood, NGOs) are trained to respond to accidental capture.